hmmm, brilliant solution! I know why don't we make a law to limit each family to one child Malthusian simplemindedness aside I find the problems of density rather fascinating subject matter - this is a skyscraper site, and last I checked skyscrapers are a solution to density. Incidentally, building and construction engineering is an evolving science requiring new breakthroughs in TECHNOLOGY but I guess it sucks that we as a society are forced to pay people to find new technology to sustain our needs...

Yes, why don't we do that? So your brilliant solution is to keep producing masses of people and not change our course at all? That way, we can challenge the great minds to come up with solutions to the problem of overpopulation...and every family in the world can have as many starving children as they want! That sounds like an excellent plan...talk about simplemindedness.

Scientific research and advances in technology are excellent and often improve our quality of life. I'm all for advances in science, but I'm also for keeping the world's population at a sustainable number. It's insane to advocate continuing reproduction at the current pace and attempting to support the huge population with new technology.

hmmm, brilliant solution! I know why don't we make a law to limit each family to one child Malthusian simplemindedness aside I find the problems of density rather fascinating subject matter - this is a skyscraper site, and last I checked skyscrapers are a solution to density.

And density itself is a solution to the problem of overpopulation. If that can be controlled, even better.

Yes, why don't we do that? So your brilliant solution is to keep producing masses of people and not change our course at all? That way, we can challenge the great minds to come up with solutions to the problem of overpopulation...and every family in the world can have as many starving children as they want!

That's where war comes in, to control the numbers and distribution of scarce resources.

Alright now, what are problems and what are symptoms, seriously? So, what are the negative aspects of people having too many babies, that is causing some of us to act as if their loins could use some lube? Lets see, the problems are disease, starvation, crime, not contributing to society either in the form of not paying taxes, requiring welfare, being imprisoned, etc., etc.

So, how many of these problems are due to there being too many people? Well, disease is influenced by many factors such as availability of healthcare, sanitation, education about the actual causes of illness and proximity to the disease carrying entities. You could have a billion people or 10, and nothing changes about the influencing factors.

Starvation is a factor of not enough food in a particular place. Why does this happen? If we have plenty of seeds, the earth is 70% water and the rest is dirt that we can use to plant in, why is there a shortage? The answer is sure as hell not that there is too many people, it relates to cost, government interference, lack of education, etc.

Crime seems like it could be directly related to overpopulation, but gasp, it has nothing to do with it. In big cities the biggest drivers of crime are drug and gang related activities, in more rural areas the biggest drivers of crime is violence between close relatives and acquantances. People killing each other in drug and gang related activities aren't doing so because there are too many people to sell drugs and "services" to, its because they chose that line of work (why they chose that line of work is related to many factors such as level of education, risk/reward perceptions, lack of knowledge about readily available alternatives - again, in no way related to so called overpopulation).

I could go on about my last point about people not contributing to society, but it would sound a great deal like the other points I've made.

I think this discussion is a byproduct of our quick fix mentality, but problems that appear to have quick fixes are usually far more complex.

Alright now, what are problems and what are symptoms, seriously? So, what are the negative aspects of people having too many babies, that is causing some of us to act as if their loins could use some lube? Lets see, the problems are disease, starvation, crime, not contributing to society either in the form of not paying taxes, requiring welfare, being imprisoned, etc., etc.

So, how many of these problems are due to there being too many people? Well, disease is influenced by many factors such as availability of healthcare, sanitation, education about the actual causes of illness and proximity to the disease carrying entities. You could have a billion people or 10, and nothing changes about the influencing factors.

Starvation is a factor of not enough food in a particular place. Why does this happen? If we have plenty of seeds, the earth is 70% water and the rest is dirt that we can use to plant in, why is there a shortage? The answer is sure as hell not that there is too many people, it relates to cost, government interference, lack of education, etc.

Crime seems like it could be directly related to overpopulation, but gasp, it has nothing to do with it. In big cities the biggest drivers of crime are drug and gang related activities, in more rural areas the biggest drivers of crime is violence between close relatives and acquantances. People killing each other in drug and gang related activities aren't doing so because there are too many people to sell drugs and "services" to, its because they chose that line of work (why they chose that line of work is related to many factors such as level of education, risk/reward perceptions, lack of knowledge about readily available alternatives - again, in no way related to so called overpopulation).

I could go on about my last point about people not contributing to society, but it would sound a great deal like the other points I've made.

I think this discussion is a byproduct of our quick fix mentality, but problems that appear to have quick fixes are usually far more complex.

Also to add that most of what is being said here about crime relates to American cities. While crime happens everywhere, it is considered safer in the middle of European cities than it is in the burbs. My friends from Europe don't understand why most of us live in the suburbs here.

As far as over population and disease, it's our own fault. TAKING THE MORALITY AND HUMAN ASPECT OUT OF IT...why do we continue to persue medicine and cures for diseases? Population in the olden days was controlled by disease, warfare, and natural disasters. While devastating, especially if it were MY closest ken, it is a fact of life. While I agree with finding ways to ease the pain of disease so we don't suffer, it was never meant for us to survive everything. If everybody lived to be over 100 (or god forbid 150), you would strain every resource the planet has...this would truely be a tragedy of the commons...social security would most certainly be done for! Think about it, we'd be paying for people born in 1858...three years before the Civil War!!!

Alright now, what are problems and what are symptoms, seriously? So, what are the negative aspects of people having too many babies, that is causing some of us to act as if their loins could use some lube? Lets see, the problems are disease, starvation, crime, not contributing to society either in the form of not paying taxes, requiring welfare, being imprisoned, etc., etc.

So, how many of these problems are due to there being too many people? Well, disease is influenced by many factors such as availability of healthcare, sanitation, education about the actual causes of illness and proximity to the disease carrying entities. You could have a billion people or 10, and nothing changes about the influencing factors.

Starvation is a factor of not enough food in a particular place. Why does this happen? If we have plenty of seeds, the earth is 70% water and the rest is dirt that we can use to plant in, why is there a shortage? The answer is sure as hell not that there is too many people, it relates to cost, government interference, lack of education, etc.

How about leaving some room for the wildlife and the oxygen producing and soil retaining trees?

Also to add that most of what is being said here about crime relates to American cities. While crime happens everywhere, it is considered safer in the middle of European cities than it is in the burbs. My friends from Europe don't understand why most of us live in the suburbs here.

As far as over population and disease, it's our own fault. TAKING THE MORALITY AND HUMAN ASPECT OUT OF IT...why do we continue to persue medicine and cures for diseases? Population in the olden days was controlled by disease, warfare, and natural disasters. While devastating, especially if it were MY closest ken, it is a fact of life. While I agree with finding ways to ease the pain of disease so we don't suffer, it was never meant for us to survive everything. If everybody lived to be over 100 (or god forbid 150), you would strain every resource the planet has...this would truely be a tragedy of the commons...social security would most certainly be done for! Think about it, we'd be paying for people born in 1858...three years before the Civil War!!!

If people could live to 150 years of age, then it makes sense that accompanying quality of life improvements would be made as well, enabling productivity for most of that time. Also, who is "we" that you are referring to? The people receiving social security now are the ones who paid for it.

Anyway, I think the world doesn't really need that many more Americans. Perhaps 700 million more environmentally conscience people would be okay, but I can't really see the planet being able to support something like a billion Americans.

__________________
Where is the love? We've only got one world. Time that we share it.

Here's an interesting article if anyone is so inclined. Basically, it talks about Europe and some Asian countries and how they are dealing with lower birth rates and falling populations. As we have had population control proposals on this page I think that this is an interesting read on how some countries are handling their lack of population growth. It certainly won't have everyone agreeing with me that growth is good, but an interesting read for sure.http://http://www.nytimes.com/2008/0...l?pagewanted=1

If I am right and I think I am the world population will climb and things we take granted will become harder to aford . Cities will change shape,size,and color over night. Imagine LA county due to an increase in forest fires and droughts with a population of 7,000,000 and a city like Las vegas and the other desert cities with a population of 38,000,000 . American payrolls may not keep up with the euro and people will try an avoid the weak dollar .chicago and its suronding area population might expand 70 miles out side the loop. Saint Louis and Detroit will ballon in size because of the low median home price and the large imagrant groups that will call them home.The south will rise to meet a massive call and food production will rise to meet the great plains . CharlestonNC, AtlantaGA ,and Jackson mississippi could see a large growth in population that could collectively reach the 30,000,000 mark but this is all speculation and my dad tells me I will be dead by then so why should I care!

Not entirely understanding that last post, but luckily with increased energy costs, the American public is getting the kick in the pants it needed to start to develop communities that are more responsibly planned. Here's for a gas tax to put toward mass transportation solutions!

If I am right and I think I am the world population will climb and things we take granted will become harder to aford . Cities will change shape,size,and color over night. Imagine LA county due to an increase in forest fires and droughts with a population of 7,000,000

7 Million in L.A. County? Are you trying to start trouble?(btw, i'm not trying to attack you)

In less than 2 decades (if not much earlier), the city of L.A. ITSELF will be that number. As for the county, i'd say 20 Million is a better estimate. Why? I'd say that because such a huge leap in growth will likely come from simultaneous Gargantuan high-rise booms that should occur throughout the county due to a mass influx of people(both American and foreign) who realize that Inner City life is much more sustainable than the already failed life of Suburbia.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dante2308

but I can't really see the planet being able to support something like a billion Americans.

Which is why I think the world won't survive having over 1.5 Billion Chinese living the same quality of lifestyle by midcentury as Americans do.

The USSR at the end of it's existance had more people then the US so the answer would be obvious and just desolve the US and then it won't have a problem. See how simple that is! You'd almost think I had a college degree.

BTW I saw Babylon A.D. yesterday and my guess is that most places in the world by 2100 will look a lot like the first 30 minutes of the movie. Just a prediction and besides God told me it's going to happen if that "Maverick" McBush gets elected with his plain/palin jane running mate.

The USSR at the end of it's existance had more people then the US so the answer would be obvious and just desolve the US and then it won't have a problem. See how simple that is! You'd almost think I had a college degree.

BTW I saw Babylon A.D. yesterday and my guess is that most places in the world by 2100 will look a lot like the first 30 minutes of the movie. Just a prediction and besides God told me it's going to happen if that "Maverick" McBush gets elected with his plain/palin jane running mate.

I hope not. The USA can not support that kind of growth and still maintain what is call the "American way of life". Especially since "the America way of life" is not sustainable. China and India have populations that large but the people there consume far less resources. If the USA grows to be 1,000,000,000 people and nothing changes expect to run out of food and water and expect a very sick population with a high mortality rate due to uncontrollable pollution.

Fortunately it is unlikely that the USA population will ever get close to 1,000,000,000, because birth rates are falling and fewer people are moving to the USA.

If the predictions are still correct the world's population is supposed to level off by 2050 even in the developing world. Who came up with this idea that the population in the US will more than triple in 90 years?